ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Flood Defence Finding Review

Elliot Morley: On 12 March 2003 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the conclusions of our review of the funding and administrative arrangements for delivering a more efficient, effective and accountable flood and coastal defence service. A year on I want to update the House on the progress we have made towards implementing these conclusions, and outline what remains to be done.
	We have set in hand arrangements for the Environment Agency to receive a single stream of Defra grant in aid funding from 1 April 2004. This will replace the previous mix of Defra grant for individual capital projects and, in large part, the levies previously raised through local authorities. This should provide the agency with more certainty of funding, allowing them to plan more strategically, while streamlining the procedures associated with implementing flood defence schemes. In future Defra approval will no longer be required for agency projects or strategies which are below £5 million though we will have the opportunity to call in strategies, and projects undertaken outside strategies, which are between £2 million and £5 million. We will also continue to ensure that the distribution of capital funding between the agency and other operating authorities (local authorities and internal drainage boards) is based on our priority scoring system which takes account of the number of people affected in relation to the cost of the project, the environment and benefit cost ratio.
	Payment of grant in aid will be linked to robust targets in the agency's corporate plan. The agency may continue to raise limited levies on local authorities, agreed through flood defence committees on which local authorities have a majority, to fund locally important flood defence works beyond those covered by Defra funding. These local levies are set to raise some £24.4 million in 2004–05.
	Work has also started on the procedures for transferring to the Environment Agency responsibility for those watercourses representing the greatest flood risk—the so-called critical ordinary watercourses. This will significantly improve accountability for flood risk with over 2,000 separate lengths of river identified for transfer. The necessary statutory procedures will start shortly with transfers taking place in stages until April 2006. Day to day management of the watercourses can be contracted back to internal drainage boards and local authorities where this is appropriate and agreed. As part of this exercise we are fully digitising the existing main river maps.
	The Government also announced the intention to move to a single tier of flood defence committee to remove the bureaucracy and second-guessing of decisions involved in having two tiers of committee in several Environment Agency regions. The Environment Agency has consulted on the proposed successor arrangements and I expect to receive their recommendations for future structures within the next month. I shall consider their proposals and bring forward orders as appropriate.
	We have also made progress on a number of other important initiatives to help improve the accountability and delivery of the flood defence service. From 1 April 2004 internal drainage boards will fall under the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman and we have developed a complaints procedure for individual boards to adopt.
	We are also working with the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Environment Agency to develop new targets for the administration and membership of boards but in the meantime I am encouraged that arrangements are already being made for 16 existing boards to merge into three larger boards in the Anglia region, and discussions are taking place in other regions.
	Jointly with the Environment Agency we have considered ways in which overheads associated with capital schemes can be reduced. We will be implementing agreed findings and targets for overhead reduction will appear in the agency's corporate plan.
	We will be assessing the benefits realised through implementation of these conclusions as part of a three-year review which we will undertake in 2007.
	Whilst the funding review conclusions are being taken forward, Defra is simultaneously leading work on a new Government wide strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management to be underpinned by the principles of sustainable development. This is being taken forward in full consultation with stakeholders and will look across all Government policies. As part of the strategy we are undertaking further work on possible new funding streams to go alongside Exchequer funding which, as we announced last March, will continue primarily to fund the service. We intend that the new strategy will steer the direction of policy over the next 10–20 years and that it will be completed in the coming financial year.
	Defra, the Environment Agency and others are putting great effort into implementing the funding review outcomes and developing a new long-term strategy. Implementing flood defence grant in aid from this April is a notable achievement and other substantial reforms to improve accountability and effectiveness will be in place in the next 12 to 24 months.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Ealing Council)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) follow-up inspection report on London Borough of Ealing Council was published on 14 April 2004 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Following the housing green paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "performance standards for housing benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the Standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.
	The BFI inspected London Borough of Ealing Council against the Performance Standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.
	However, the report finds that the council had made sustained improvements in a number of areas since the first BFI inspection report published in December 2000. The council:
	had significantly reduced its backlog of work from 46,000 items to 4,000; was processing housing benefits claims faster; had reduced the amount of time that customers wait when they make an enquiry by telephone or in person; had reduced the number of complaints and increased the level of satisfaction reported by customers; and had prosecuted more benefit fraudsters.
	Weaknesses still remained in the controls for internal fraud and for recovering overpayments of benefit. The council still needs to do more to better manage its counter-fraud effort and, in particular, to deter fraud.
	The council had improved its processing times for new claims to benefit and changes of circumstances, taking an average 51 days to process claims and 15 days to process changes of circumstances compared to the national standards of 36 and 9 days.
	The council had carried out a number of good quality fraud investigations. During 2002–03, it had prosecuted 18 fraudsters compared to one during 1999–00 putting it in the top 25 per cent. of performers compared with the other London boroughs.
	In 2002–03, London Borough of Ealing Council administered some £121.2 million in housing benefits, about 18 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Leicester City Council)

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Leicester city council was published on 15 April 2004 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library. Following the housing green paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.
	The BFI inspected Leicester city council against the performance standards for housing benefits. The report finds that the council is not at standard for any of the seven functional areas of the performance standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.
	However, the report notes the considerable efforts made by members, senior officers and staff over a sustained period of time.
	The report finds that the council had a backlog of around 14,500 cases, poor IT reliability, insufficient management information which together with limited planning had hindered the council's ability to deliver an effective benefits service. This had resulted in new benefit claims and changes of circumstances taking 141 days and 49 days to process during 2002–03.
	Although processing times were taking too long, the quality of processing and verification of claims was found to be of a good standard. However, the lack of effective management checks meant that the council had only limited assurance that benefits were being paid correctly and securely. Also, customers were experiencing problems trying to access the benefits service by telephone.
	The quality of fraud investigation work was good and all investigation officers were trained to professional standards. However, limited resources and weaknesses in the planning of investigation work were undermining efforts to secure the benefits system.
	In 2002–03, Leicester city council administered some £97 million in housing benefits, about 16 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

New Targeting Social Need

Paul Murphy: I wish to advise the House that on 14 April 2004 I launched a public consultation exercise in respect of a proposed way forward for new targeting social need (New TSN), the Government's high level policy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in Northern Ireland.
	By undertaking this consultation we are fulfilling a commitment given by the previous Northern Ireland Executive, in its programme for Government, to review the New TSN policy.
	Copies of the consultation paper "New TSN—the Way Forward Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Water Resource Strategy

John Spellar: Today I am publishing the Water Service's Water Resource Strategy 2002–30.
	The Strategy provides a framework for meeting increasing water demand in Northern Ireland, through the efficient use of water including leakage reduction and by upgrading and rationalising the existing supply system.
	An Executive Summary of the Strategy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on the Water Service website at www.waterni.gov.uk.

DEFENCE

Joint Medal Office

Ivor Caplin: As part of a wider modernisation of service personnel administration policies and the procedures and the introduction of the IT to support their delivery known as the joint personnel administration (JPA) programme, and following an investment appraisal and consultation with trade unions, the decision has been taken to concentrate the delivery of JPA from three sites: Innsworth, Gosport and Glasgow.
	This will incorporate the creation, from March 2005, of a joint medal office at Innsworth the current location of the RAF medal office and will involve the phased closure of the army medal office at Droitwich and the Royal Navy and Royal Marines medal offices located at Gosport. In order to provide continuity of service and to build up the necessary expertise at Innsworth the transfer of responsibilities will be phased.
	Consultation with MOD Trade Unions about the choice of the three sites from which JPA will be delivered has been undertaken and detailed local consultation about the implications for staff will start shortly. It is expected that some of the current staff will transfer to Innsworth with the work. It is anticipated that staff at Gosport and Innsworth who are unable to transfer to the JMO will be found other positions in the locality, but I cannot rule out a programme of early retirement and redundancy that may be required in particular at Droitwich.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme

Yvette Cooper: The Government is today publishing a research report and research summary entitled "Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme Evaluation". This evaluation of the neighbourhood wardens scheme, undertaken by Social Development Direct, concludes that, in successful schemes, wardens are laving a significant impact. Neighbourhood wardens schemes represent value for money in relation to crime reduction. There are also important, but uncosted, additional benefits—improved quality of life, reduced fear of crime, improvements in environmental problems and anti-social behaviour.
	Copies of the research report and summary are available at www.neighbourhood.gov.uk and in the Library of the House.

Regional Planning Guidance (North-West)

Yvette Cooper: The North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) published, on 19 April, a consultative draft of the Partial Review of Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) that was published by my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister in March 2003.
	RPG13 sets out the spatial development strategy that encompasses proposals for the development of the Region's economy, housing and transport infrastructure, and other land uses. It also sets out proposals for the conservation, management and enhancement of the Region's natural and cultural environment.
	Regional Planning Guidance also provides the regional framework for the plans and strategies of a range of public, private and voluntary organisations, including the preparation of local authority Development Plans and Local Transport Plans.
	The consultation will also allow consideration of the implications of the Northern Way growth work being led by the Regional Development Agencies.
	The selective, partial, review covers a number of key matters of importance to the future of the region, including:
	Transport—The Regional Transport Strategy is updated in the light of a number of major studies in the region and consultations on national aviation policy. The review also includes transport investment priorities, the management of the regional highway network, a regional freight strategy and criteria to ensure that new developments are accessible by public transport;
	Sustainable energy—targets are put in place that should help to increase the amount of energy supplied from renewable resources;
	Waste management—a new approach to handling waste is set out that will encourage recycling and composting, and reduce landfill;
	Climate change—a new policy on climate change is introduced that will aim to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets and allow planning for the implications of climate change;
	Strategic Regional Parks— three broad areas of search for Strategic Regional Parks are identified based on the North West Coast, the Mersey Belt and East Lancashire; and
	Strategic Views along the River Mersey—a policy to protect and enhance selected views for different parts of the Mersey valley is put forward.
	The draft Partial Review is published for consultation with all regional stakeholders over a period of 12 weeks. An independent Panel will take into account all responses to the consultation before it hole s a Public Examination in November, where it will consider the issues arising from the consultation. The Panel will produce a report for the First Secretary of State, who will then publish the final version of the RPG following further consultation, in 2005.
	Copies of the relevant documents are available in the Libraries of both Houses and have been provided for all of the Region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Afghanistan

Hilary Benn: The Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Trade and Investment and I attended the donor conference on Afghanistan held in Berlin on 31 March and 1 April, at which donors were invited to respond to the recent needs assessment compiled by the World Bank.
	The conference was an opportunity for donors to: assess the political progress that has taken place in Afghanistan since the Bonn and Tokyo conferences of 2001 and 2002; discuss the challenges that now face the Afghan Government; and demonstrate continued commitment to Afghanistan's long-term future development.
	The announcement by President Karzai of the plan to hold elections in September was warmly welcomed. At a side meeting donors pledged an additional $65 million to the election process, helping to keep it on track. The UK pledged an additional $5 million, taking our overall election funding to $24 million. Preparations for elections are on course although security for a free and fair election remains a major concern.
	Donors demonstrated their commitment to Afghanistan, by pledging US$8.2 billion of assistance over the next three years. This represents two thirds of Afghanistan's requirements over this period, and it is hoped folly to meet Afghanistan's needs with increased money becoming available from donors that were only able to make one-year pledges in Berlin. Of this new pledge over half, US$4.5 billion, is for this financial year. This meets Afghanistan's request for the year and is more than double the amount disbursed in Afghanistan last year. This increase comes at an important time, as a number of Government programmes become effective and the Government's capacity to absorb funds and implement programmes increases.
	As I outlined in my statement to Parliament prior tothe conference, 1 March 2004, Official Report, column 74WS, I announced an increase of the UK's commitment to Afghanistan from £200 million over five years to at least £500 million over the same period. This funding is to support a range of reconstruction work, support for conflict prevention, and the counter narcotics effort. A booklet outlining DFID's programme in Afghanistan has been placed in the Library of the House.
	Many donors acknowledged the particular challenges that both drugs and the security situation present to Afghanistan's successful development. I emphasised to the conference the UK's commitment as lead donor to   tackling the opium industry in Afghanistan, and many other donors also acknowledged the importance of dealing with this. The UK's specific provision of £70 million over three years to tackle this problem is an important lead and we are working closely with other donors to increase their funding in this area and to ensure that all development assistance is delivered in a way which supports counter-narcotics objectives. In the light of the importance that the conference attached to this problem, it was also a real achievement for the Afghan Government that they signed the Berlin Declaration on Counter Narcotics with the six signatories to the Good Neighbourly Relations Declaration, agreeing a common stance on tackling drugs in the region.

TRANSPORT

Dibden Bay Port Terminal

Tony McNulty: I am today issuing the decision on the proposals submitted by Associated British Ports to develop a new container port at Dibden Bay, near Southampton. The Inspector's report of the public inquiry held into the proposals between November 2001 and December 2002 is also being published today.
	The decision and the reasons for it are set out in the decision letter.
	After carefully considering the Inspector's report and taking into account all relevant considerations, I have decided to refuse permission for the port development, in line with the Inspector's recommendation.
	The Government fully recognise the nation's and industry's needs for additional container port capacity in order to meet future economic demand. Every proposed port development must nevertheless be justified on its own merits.
	One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact of the proposals on internationally protected sites.
	A copy of the decision letter has been placed in the House Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Council of the European Union

Denis MacShane: The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:
	
		
			 Date Location Event 
		
		
			 April   
			 26–27 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 26–27 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 27 Luxembourg EU/Russia Permanent Partnership Council (Troika?) 
			 29–30 Brussels Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee 
			 29–30 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 May   
			 1 Dublin Enlargement Event 
			 4–6 Dublin EuroMed Foreign Ministers 
			 6–7 Botswana EU-ACP Council of Ministers 
			 7 Limerick Meeting of Ministers with responsibility for Equality 
			 9–11 Killarney Agriculture Informal Ministerial Meeting 
			 10 Brussels Meeting of Eurogroup 
			 11 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 11–12 Cork Health Ministers Consultative Meeting 
			 14–16 Waterford Informal Meeting of EU Environment Ministers 
			 17–18 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 19–20 Offaly Informal Budget Committee 
			 21 Moscow EU/Russia Summit (Troika) 
			 23–25 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 24–25 Brussels Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee 
			 24–25 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 25–27 Co. Galway Conference on Islands and Territorial cohesion-Meeting New Challenges 
			 27–28 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council 
			 27–31 Dublin Ministers and Directors General of Public Administration 
			 28 Guadalajara EU-Latin America/Caribbean Summit 
			 June   
			 1–2 Luxembourg Health Council 
			 1 Dublin Development Ministers' Meeting 
			 1 Luxembourg Meeting of Eurogroup 
			 2 Luxembourg ECOFIN 
			 8 Luxembourg Justice & Home Affairs Council Meeting 
			 10–11 Luxembourg Transport, Telecom & Energy Council 
			 14–15 Luxembourg General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 17–18 Brussels EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
			 21–22 Luxembourg Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 21–22 Brussels Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee 
			 25–26 tbc EU-US Summit 
			 28–29 Luxembourg Council Meeting of EU Environment Ministers 
			 July   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 2–3 Maastricht Competitiveness (Informal) 
			 7 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 7–8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 8 tbc EU-Ukraine Summit 
			 8–10 Maastricht Social Policy (Informal) 
			 9–10 Amsterdam Transport (Informal) 
			 12–13 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 12–14 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture 
			 14 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 16–18 Maastricht Environment (Informal) 
			 19 Brussels JHA Council 
			 19 Brussels Agricultural & Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 23 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 August   
			 No meetings planned 
			 September   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 2 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 3–4 Maastricht Gymnich 
			 5–7 Noordwijk Agriculture & Fisheries (Informal) 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 9–10 Noordwijk Health (Informal) 
			 11 Sheveningen ECOFIN 
			 13–14 Brussels GAERC 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 16 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 17–18 Noordwijk Informal Ministerial Defence 
			 20–21 Brussels Agricultural & Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 24 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 27 Brussels (Possible) Council Transport, Telcom and Energy 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 30 Den Haag JHA (Informal)